Equity in siting green infrastructure
To support criteria selection and recommendations, the Project Team conducted a literature review, starting with a focus on criteria and co-benefits.
There is considerable scholarship examining the multi-beneficial outcomes of green infrastructure. First, when properly managed, green infrastructure has been shown to be more cost effective than grey infrastructure for managing stormwater (US EPA 2015b).

Beyond cost savings, it has been widely accepted that green infrastructure can provide benefits beyond stormwater mitigation and has the potential to achieve the “triple bottom line” of environmental, economic, and social benefits (Heckert and Rosan 2018). For example, environmentally, green infrastructure can reduce the urban heat island effect, enhance water quality, provide habitat for native animals and insects, and improve air quality (Dagenais et al. 2017). Socially, it is associated with decreases in crime, increased neighborhood aesthetics, and enhanced quality of life (Kondo et al. 2015). Economically, construction of green infrastructure projects can stimulate economic activity and lead to energy savings (Kondo et al. 2015).

This triple bottom line is particularly relevant to environmental justice communities. Existing research has found that low-income communities and cultural and racial minority groups are often exposed to higher-than-average levels of environmental pollutants while having lower than average access to environmental benefits like trees or parks (Dunn 2010). Many scholars assert that green infrastructure planning presents an opportunity to reverse this trend by prioritizing investments in communities that have been historically harmed by land use decisions and by including those communities in decision-making processes (O’Brien et al. 2017, Heckert and Rosan 2018).
The siting for green infrastructure is typically determined based on several stormwater-centered variables, including topography, soil quality, and storm drain access. However, if secondary benefits are also considered, there is a greater potential that green infrastructure can optimize stormwater capture while also addressing broader community concerns. it. For this project, the Project Team reference two recently published resources to inform the focus on equity for this tool: the “Equity Guide for Green Stormwater Infrastructure” developed by the Green Infrastructure Leadership Exchange in and Greenprint Partners in 20221, and “Is Green Infrastructure a Universal Good?”, a 2022 report from the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Services and the Urban Systems Lab.

“Green Infrastructure can be a powerful lever for advancing equity”
“The Equity Guide” provides equity-focused resources for a “Plan, Do, Check, and Act” model that encourages an iterative, intentional, data-driven, and community-centered approach for successful Green Infrastructure projects. “The Equity Guide” outlines 7 “Equity Goals” that each reflect an area of practice that can impact equity: Programs and Policies, Internal readiness, Siting + Investment, Benefits-Driven Project Development, Economic Stability, Preventing Displacement, and Centering Community. Of these, the Equitable Green Infrastructure Siting Tool most strongly addresses the goal of Siting and Investment, described as a project where “project selection approach and investment levels proactively consider potential to advance equity.” In particular, the guide suggests siting GI in areas with the greatest potential to advance equity and in communities that need it most, acknowledging that lower income communities and communities of color are often less likely to receive GI projects, and are often in more flood prone areas. They also recommend making data and decisions more transparent. Both of these best practices are directly reflected in the Equitable GI Siting Tool. It is important to note that beyond site selection, however, there are many other practices necessary to meet the other 6 equity goals outlined in this framework. The Project Team continues this discussion at the end of this report.

In the report “Is Green Infrastructure a Universal Good?”, the authors examined 122 Green Infrastructure plans in 20 US cities with the goal to “improve how GI planning and policy addresses equity.” Their investigation found that “Despite emerging commitments to equity, and with few exceptions, GI plans do not consistently define or address equity concerns.” The report also highlights the concern of green gentrification due to GI investments.
“Universal Good” establishes a Green Infrastructure Equity Framework that divides principles of equity into three dimensions: Conceptual (how equity is envisioned, defined, and framed), Procedural (how impacted communities were involved), and Distributional (how the benefits of GI are planned to be distributed, as well as if potential unintended consequences are addressed). Within this framework, the Equitable GI Siting Tool addresses the principle of “Distributional Equity” as it encourages the siting of GI projects in places where its benefits would be most impactful. Considerations of green gentrification are an important aspect of this work that is not reflected in the tool but should be considered in decision-making.
Again, this reporting underscores the idea that a spatial tool cannot address all aspects of equity. Principles of Conceptual and Procedural Equity should be actively embedded in the processes surrounding the planning, design, implementation, and maintenance of GI.
Last updated